Big 3 - most complete players in history?

[Deleted member 307496]

Every player has an obvious weakness:

Federer: Backhand
Nasal: Serve
Djokovic: Net Game/Overhead
Murray: Second Serve
Wawrinka: Return
Safin: Mental
Hewitt: Power
Roddick: Net Game/Backhand
Kuerten: Hard/Grass Game
Sampras: Claycourt Game
Agassi: Volley
Becker: Ground Game
Edberg: Forehand
Rafter: Serve
Ivanisevic: Mental
Courier: Backhand
Chang: Serve
Borg: Hardcourt Game
Conners: Serve
McEnroe: Ground Game

*I never actually watched an Ivan Lendl or Mats Wilander match, so I can’t comment on any weaknesses they might have. But I have never seen a player with no weaknesses. Safin is about the closest I’ve seen, but while he seemed to be technically very good at everything, he wasn’t really spectacular at anything. Backhand maybe?

Lol...

Lleyton had more power than Chang.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hell, Novak barely holds the racket! And his FHs are awful. In fact, he won every single point through sheer chance.

Science says the odds of that happening - winning a billion points through luck in a row - is 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%, but hey, what does science know?

Depends on the strength of the opposition....if the opposition can't volley or serve, it makes it better odds of winning.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Talk Tennis World! IMO, the most complete ATG players are or were: Pancho Gonzalez, Laver, Federer and probably Nadal. Novak and Rosewall are close, but Novak could use a better overhead, Ken a better serve.

Yes, but the smash isn't a key shot, like the serve or FH. All you need is a usable smash to win points. You can't win slams with a usable FH though.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Seems like a good list. It's hard for me to assess Pancho, but from some clips, and writings, he appeared to be an even more athletic version of Sampras. Another player who I thought had all the tools you could ever want (if not emotionally) was Ilie Nastase.

All in all, Fed may be the most "complete", and Novak may be the most balanced - no drop off from forehand to backhand, great return game, etc.

We need to stick to Open Era, otherwise comparisons get too ridiculous and way too few people have any clue how guys from that ancient era played.

 

[tonylg]

Yes, but the smash isn't a key shot, like the serve or FH. All you need is a usable smash to win points. You can't win slams with a usable FH though.

Without a good overhead you aren't a complete player, which is the subject of this thread.

It's true that with the current racquets, strings and courts you can win all the slams without a complete game .. specifically without a decent net game.

It's always been possible to win the French without a good net game, but show up to a fast grass court without the luxury of a <330g poly strung racquet and a player with a complete game will take the net away from you and beat you down.

And they'll do that even if you have the best volleys in the world, because without the threat of a good smash you can't crowd the net and make your opponent try to hit a difficult pass.

So whilst I concede that being a complete player is irrelevant to the current game, it's the topic of this thread.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Without a good overhead you aren't a complete player, which is the subject of this thread.

It's true that with the current racquets, strings and courts you can win all the slams without a complete game .. specifically without a decent net game.

It's always been possible to win the French without a good net game, but show up to a fast grass court without the luxury of a <330g poly strung racquet and a player with a complete game will take the net away from you and beat you down.

And they'll do that even if you have the best volleys in the world, because without the threat of a good smash you can't crowd the net and make your opponent try to hit a difficult pass.

So whilst I concede that being a complete player is irrelevant to the current game, it's the topic of this thread.

Sure, you can nitpick... We can also pick an even more obscure shot such as the overhead jump-very-high-not-facing-the-net backhand and say that a player who has everything can't do that. Hence, using this logic, he isn't a complete player.

Basic shots: volley, serve, FH, BH, the slice. Less basic dropshot, smash, half-volley. Almost irrelevant the overhead jump-very-high-not-facing-the-net reverse backhand.

They don't all have the same weight, not even close.

 

[steenkash]

People need to let go of nostalgia, or this attempt to be hip and edgy by saying players like Novak, Nadal, and Roger is nowhere complete vs the players from the 60s-90s. Are you blind? The level of tennis in the last 15 years has been the highest ever, from groundstrokes to movement. This is the most complete era, and Djocovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray and Warwinka area the most complete players of all time.

 

[Phoenix1983]

No, I'm not for a moment suggesting that Roger, Novak and Rafa are the most complete players in history. But, who are?

Not the GOATs, not the most slams, but who have been the most complete players in the history of tennis? The ones who possess every stroke:

Great serve, solid off both sides (with some weapons), good net game (not just volleys to finish points), dependable overhead, good mover (defensive and offensive), plus some flair and creativity.

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Borg

Yes, I've left some amazing players out (Sampras is the obvious one) .. as you must if you narrow it down to 3.

It’s Laver, Federer and McEnroe for me.

Novak Djokovic nowhere near contention.

 

[Start da Game]

sampras

 

[tonylg]

The more I think about this, the more I think Hewitt deserves to be part of the conversation.

His biggest handicap was his height.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[tonylg]

A complete player would have found other ways to try and win against Stan today. Serve and volley, attack the net on return games. All Novak can do is grind (incredibly well).

 

[captainbryce]

Lol...

Lleyton had more power than Chang.

Even if that were true,

A- I don’t believe I asserted otherwise...
B- That’s not really saying much!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Even if that were true,

A- I don’t believe I asserted otherwise...
B- That’s not really saying much!

Your point should have included Chang's lack of power.